DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.42067#0025
Introduction
15
He stresses the practical purpose of artistic forms which appears to
him as primary. However, he assumes that these forms, while
devoted first of all to practical purposes, are intended at the same
time to serve an esthetic need that is felt by the people. Thus, he
says, that primitive ornament is by origin and by its fundamental
nature not intended as decorative but as a practically significant
mark or symbol, that is to say as expressive. If I understand him
correctly this practical significance implies some kind of meaning
inherent in the form.
Emil Stephan1 concludes from his detailed discussion of Melane-
sian art that technical motives offer no sufficient explanation for the
origin of artistic forms (pp. 52 et seq.). He considers all ornament
as representative and sees the origin of art in that unconscious
mental process by which the form appears as distinct from the
content of the visual impression, and in the desire to give perma-
nence to the form (p. 51). For this reason he considers the artistic
forms also as equivalents of the way in which the form appears to
the primitive artist.
Alfred C. Haddon2 and W. H. Holmes3 seek the origin of all
decorative art in realism. They discuss the transfer of technical forms
to ornament but they see in these also results of the endeavor to
reproduce realistic form, namely; technical details. Henry Balfour4
agrees, on the whole, with this position but he stresses also the
development of decorative motives from the actual use of technical
processes.
Gottfried Semper5 emphasizes the importance of the form as
determined by the manner of use. He also stresses the influence
of designs developed in weaving and of their transfer upon other
forms of technique, particularly upon architectural forms.
1 Emil Stephan, Siidseekunst, Berlin, 1907.
2 Alfred C. Haddon, Evolution in Art, London 1895.
3 W. H. Holmes, Origin and Development of Form in Ceramic Art, Annual Report
Bureau of Ethnology, Vol. 4, 1886, pp. 443 et seq.
4 Henry Balfour, The Evolution of Decorative Art, London 1893.
5 Gottfried Semper, Der Stil in den Technischen und Tektonischen Kiinsten, I860.
15
He stresses the practical purpose of artistic forms which appears to
him as primary. However, he assumes that these forms, while
devoted first of all to practical purposes, are intended at the same
time to serve an esthetic need that is felt by the people. Thus, he
says, that primitive ornament is by origin and by its fundamental
nature not intended as decorative but as a practically significant
mark or symbol, that is to say as expressive. If I understand him
correctly this practical significance implies some kind of meaning
inherent in the form.
Emil Stephan1 concludes from his detailed discussion of Melane-
sian art that technical motives offer no sufficient explanation for the
origin of artistic forms (pp. 52 et seq.). He considers all ornament
as representative and sees the origin of art in that unconscious
mental process by which the form appears as distinct from the
content of the visual impression, and in the desire to give perma-
nence to the form (p. 51). For this reason he considers the artistic
forms also as equivalents of the way in which the form appears to
the primitive artist.
Alfred C. Haddon2 and W. H. Holmes3 seek the origin of all
decorative art in realism. They discuss the transfer of technical forms
to ornament but they see in these also results of the endeavor to
reproduce realistic form, namely; technical details. Henry Balfour4
agrees, on the whole, with this position but he stresses also the
development of decorative motives from the actual use of technical
processes.
Gottfried Semper5 emphasizes the importance of the form as
determined by the manner of use. He also stresses the influence
of designs developed in weaving and of their transfer upon other
forms of technique, particularly upon architectural forms.
1 Emil Stephan, Siidseekunst, Berlin, 1907.
2 Alfred C. Haddon, Evolution in Art, London 1895.
3 W. H. Holmes, Origin and Development of Form in Ceramic Art, Annual Report
Bureau of Ethnology, Vol. 4, 1886, pp. 443 et seq.
4 Henry Balfour, The Evolution of Decorative Art, London 1893.
5 Gottfried Semper, Der Stil in den Technischen und Tektonischen Kiinsten, I860.